The Queen v WS

[2013] QChC 9

[2013] QChC 9

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGE DICK SC

THE QUEEN

v.

WS

BRISBANE

..DATE 08/02/2013

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR:  This is an application for review of a sentence imposed on the applicant on the 8th of December 2011.

He was 14 when he was sentenced. It is argued that although this application is out of time, it is unremarkable that he did not understand his legal rights and pursue his right to a review and that there is no prejudice to the respondent. There is no argument to the contrary and so leave is granted to extend the filing of the application to the 21st of December 2012 pursuant to section 119(2)(b) of the Youth Justice Act.

...

HER HONOUR:  At the time of the sentence the applicant had a criminal history.  He had been sentenced to detention in February 2011 with no conviction recorded for property type offences, similar offences to those ones which I am considering.

On the 8th of December 2011 he was again sentenced to a period of detention for similar type offences and a conviction is recorded.  That is the matter that he seeks to review.

A presentence report was obtained for the sentence and both parties were in agreement that detention was the only appropriate sentence.

The Magistrate did seek submissions on the recording of a conviction and he, it seems to me, placed considerable emphasis on the view he took that there was no likelihood that the imposing of a criminal conviction would have any effect on his prospects for the future.

I do not need to find that he was in error, but I think he put undue emphasis on that consideration and not enough emphasis on the fact that the child was 14 when he was sentenced.

The courts have recognised that there are different considerations in deciding whether or not to record a conviction for young offenders.  In the case of an adult offender the Court of Appeal has said that there must be a real potential to interfere with the person's economic or social well-being.  That is not the case in this regime.

The Court's response has been described as slow to record a conviction and there is good reason, it would seem, for doing so and that is because, it seems, there is much uncertainty about a young offender's future direction in life.

I have come to the view that at his youthful age and despite the fact that it was his second period of detention the review is successful and in respect of the order recording a conviction that order is deleted.

-----